Re: Negative Numbers in "Identity" or" Autonumber" fields
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:00:37 GMT
Message-ID: <pCELh.38357$DN.16195_at_pd7urf2no>
>
>
> That could be smart. I remember a group of smart people trying to
> figure out how to retrofit limitless tail recursion to a compiler and
> interpreter and after a period of months, they proposed a great number
> of changes. Whereas the language forbade certain characters, like "#"
> ala SQL, if I recall, which the interpreter could have recognized
> without the compiler ever knowing about. I estimated the change cost at
> about a half day, guaranteed! Of course, it would have been
> embarrassing to go that route after all that study time.
>
> p
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:00:37 GMT
Message-ID: <pCELh.38357$DN.16195_at_pd7urf2no>
paul c wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
> ....
>
>> As a matter of fact, I recently suggested using the negative range for >> extending a system. The positive range of one key was exposed to the >> users who naturally started using it frequently in their communications. >> ...
>
>
> That could be smart. I remember a group of smart people trying to
> figure out how to retrofit limitless tail recursion to a compiler and
> interpreter and after a period of months, they proposed a great number
> of changes. Whereas the language forbade certain characters, like "#"
> ala SQL, if I recall, which the interpreter could have recognized
> without the compiler ever knowing about. I estimated the change cost at
> about a half day, guaranteed! Of course, it would have been
> embarrassing to go that route after all that study time.
>
> p
Sorry, the compiler would have known about it, but the grammar wouldn't have.
p Received on Tue Mar 20 2007 - 00:00:37 CET